Arizona now Texas!

This is a discussion on Arizona now Texas! within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by ErnieNWillis
Hopyard, with all due respect why is it "Feel good racist talk" to want to prevent illegals from benefiting from the ...

re: EnrieNWillis

Originally Posted by ErnieNWillis

Hopyard, with all due respect why is it "Feel good racist talk" to want to prevent illegals from benefiting from the fruits of our (legal citizens) labor?

Because this is not how our country has historically treated any other group of people in its history. It is racist because it has cropped up only in the context of Mexican aliens, and in the past in the context of the Chinese Exclusion Act.

It is feel good talk because it gives us the false sense that we are doing something to solve the illegal migrant issue.

Because this is not how our country has historically treated any other group of people in its history. It is racist because it has cropped up only in the context of Mexican aliens, and in the past in the context of the Chinese Exclusion Act.

It is feel good talk because it gives us the false sense that we are doing something to solve the illegal migrant issue.

Please note I am not calling you a racist.

I didn't think you were calling me a racist. It would seem like it is geared more towards illegal Mexicans because it is. I don't think there are too many illegal Canadians. Just so you know I have family members of Mexican decent and are natural born citizens that are for all illegal Mexicans being expelled from the US.

I didn't think you were calling me a racist. It would seem like it is geared more towards illegal Mexicans because it is. I don't think there are too many illegal Canadians. Just so you know I have family members of Mexican decent and are natural born citizens that are for all illegal Mexicans being expelled from the US.

There is a problem and it is being exploited by whom? Mexican nationals., yet people continue to cry racism because it is a predominately Mexican problem. I am engaged to a first generation American whose parents are Mexican Nationals who are naturalized ( LEGALLY without AMNESTY) citizens and her mom doesn't even speak much english yet I am considered a racist because I believe that something needs to be done about this. Guess what, they do too.... those darn racists.

I am glad some Legislators are finally addressing the issues us citizens are getting fed up with, even if they are only doing it for their own purposes because it is an election year. The thing is we can't sustain on the current path and something needs to happen before it breaks.

By their way of thinking and their supporters way of thinking, we should all be allowed to go rob banks and stores to provide for our families provided it doesn't hurt anyone.... hey we are just trying to make a living.

re: Queensidecas

Originally Posted by Queensidecas

I am very familliar with the case you cited as well as many other constitutional laywers such as Mark Levin who was quoted in that blog. Essentially what it boils down to is that the Supreme Court's rulling in that case is an error that needs to be rectified. Much like how the Supreme Court needs to fix our current situation where the language in 2A "shall not be infringed" is not being adhered to.

Many injustices exist both as a faulty judgment from past court rulings to rulings that need to be made to secure our liberty in this country. Just because the court is in error doesnt mean we as citizens shouldnt do everything in our power to regain our proper constitutional rights.

Levin says, “This language requires more than birth within the United Sates.” He points out that American Indians who were “subject to tribal jurisdiction were excluded from citizenship.” He also notes the status of foreign visitors and diplomats who are “not subject to American jurisdiction.”

If someone is in the US illegally, that individual is still subject to his native country’s jurisdiction.

ANYONE present here except a diplomat or soldiers of an invading army is necessarily subject to our laws, subject to our jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dealt with the false argument Levin put up in their ruling. [And who is he anyway? Why should any of us care what he thinks?]

It is evident that even Arizona believes illegal immigrants are subject to their jurisdiction. How else would AZ think its LEOs have the authority (jurisdiction) to stop the cars driven by illegals and ask for papers? Just think about that for a moment. That proves that illegals here are subject to the jurisdiction of the state.

Queensidecas wrote: "If someone is in the US illegally, that individual is still subject to his native country’s jurisdiction."

So? That has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Do you think Joran Van der Sloot shouldn't be subject to the jurisdiction of Peru and being charged with murder in Peru because he is Dutch? He is a foreigner in Peru, and subject to their jurisdiction. The same happens when an American visits any other country. Unless you are a diplomat you are subject to their jurisdiction while you are present.

The historical record of the Congressional debate which occurred during the drafting of the 14th make it quite clear what Congress was talking about when they added that phrase about "subject to jurisdiction" and the Supreme Court has already dealt with that in clean, clear, and unambiguous terms. It meant--- and it means-- children born here of folks with diplomatic immunity, who therefore are not subject to our laws, do not get US citizenship by birthright. That reading of the phrase makes real sense, logically, and is what Congress intended.

I have no idea who this alleged lawyer Levin is, but his opinion and my opinion, and your opinion, really don't cut it as a matter of law. The only opinions which count are those of the Courts of Appeal and The Supreme Court.

States can foolishly pass unconstitutional laws by the dozen and can create all manner of mischief by doing so, but a law which would deny
citizenship to a child born here would still be unconstitutional until such time as either the constitution is amended or the Supreme Court changes its decision.

In this instance, if you actually read the existing decision, the reasoning is so well done and carefully laid out, that it would be overturned only on political, not legal, grounds.

Queensidecas wrote: "Supreme Court's rulling in that case is an error that needs to be rectified. "

Even if one agreed that you are correct, it is not within the authority of individual states to rectify the matter.

ANYONE present here except a diplomat or soldiers of an invading army is necessarily subject to our laws, subject to our jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dealt with the false argument Levin put up in their ruling. [And who is he anyway? Why should any of us care what he thinks?]

It is evident that even Arizona believes illegal immigrants are subject to their jurisdiction. How else would AZ think its LEOs have the authority (jurisdiction) to stop the cars driven by illegals and ask for papers? Just think about that for a moment. That proves that illegals here are subject to the jurisdiction of the state.

Queensidecas wrote: "If someone is in the US illegally, that individual is still subject to his native country’s jurisdiction."

So? That has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Do you think Joran Van der Sloot shouldn't be subject to the jurisdiction of Peru and being charged with murder in Peru because he is Dutch? He is a foreigner in Peru, and subject to their jurisdiction. The same happens when an American visits any other country. Unless you are a diplomat you are subject to their jurisdiction while you are present.

The historical record of the Congressional debate which occurred during the drafting of the 14th make it quite clear what Congress was talking about when they added that phrase about "subject to jurisdiction" and the Supreme Court has already dealt with that in clean, clear, and unambiguous terms. It meant--- and it means-- children born here of folks with diplomatic immunity, who therefore are not subject to our laws, do not get US citizenship by birthright. That reading of the phrase makes real sense, logically, and is what Congress intended.

I have no idea who this alleged lawyer Levin is, but his opinion and my opinion, and your opinion, really don't cut it as a matter of law. The only opinions which count are those of the Courts of Appeal and The Supreme Court.

States can foolishly pass unconstitutional laws by the dozen and can create all manner of mischief by doing so, but a law which would deny
citizenship to a child born here would still be unconstitutional until such time as either the constitution is amended or the Supreme Court changes its decision.

In this instance, if you actually read the existing decision, the reasoning is so well done and carefully laid out, that it would be overturned only on political, not legal, grounds.

Queensidecas wrote: "Supreme Court's rulling in that case is an error that needs to be rectified. "

Even if one agreed that you are correct, it is not within the authority of individual states to rectify the matter.

So in that case you now fully support the AZ law 1070 as the Supreme Court has decided that police are well within their rights to question someone regarding their immigration status in the course of a legitimate law enforcement action?

SCOTUS 2005 Muehler v. Mena
"that a police officer does not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about her immigration status" in the context of a legitimate law enforcement action.

re: Azchevy

Originally Posted by azchevy

There is a problem and it is being exploited by whom? Mexican nationals., yet people continue to cry racism because it is a predominately Mexican problem. I am engaged to a first generation American whose parents are Mexican Nationals who are naturalized ( LEGALLY without AMNESTY) citizens and her mom doesn't even speak much english yet I am considered a racist because I believe that something needs to be done about this. Guess what, they do too.... those darn racists.

I am glad some Legislators are finally addressing the issues us citizens are getting fed up with, even if they are only doing it for their own purposes because it is an election year. The thing is we can't sustain on the current path and something needs to happen before it breaks.

By their way of thinking and their supporters way of thinking, we should all be allowed to go rob banks and stores to provide for our families provided it doesn't hurt anyone.... hey we are just trying to make a living.

I think there are few people, especially among those who have come here legally and been naturalized, who approve of or condone the illegal migrant's act.

And yes, the thing (our immigration laws and our border security) is broken.

Still, these proposed unconstitutional laws to deny birthright citizenship are clearly aimed at the children of Mexican nationals, and in this way are precisely as racist as The Chinese Exclusion Act was.

We can fix our problems without violating our constitution. Just as we have plenty of means to address criminal activity without taking people's gun rights away, we have plenty of ways to deal with the illegal migrant issue without taking people's citizenship rights away.

I think there are few people, especially among those who have come here legally and been naturalized, who approve of or condone the illegal migrant's act.

And yes, the thing (our immigration laws and our border security) is broken.

Still, these proposed unconstitutional laws to deny birthright citizenship are clearly aimed at the children of Mexican nationals, and in this way are precisely as racist as The Chinese Exclusion Act was.

We can fix our problems without violating our constitution. Just as we have plenty of mean to address criminal activity without taking people's gun rights away, we have plenty of ways to deal with the illegal migrant issue without taking people's citizenship rights away.

Many different nationalities come here to have anchor babies and exploit our system so just saying that it is a Mexican issue can be construed as racist itself. This has nothing to do with the Chinese exclusion act and is not even remotely similar. This is targeting everyone not singling out Mexicans.

re: Azchevy

Originally Posted by azchevy

So in that case you now fully support the AZ law 1070 as the Supreme Court has decided that police are well within their rights to question someone regarding their immigration status in the course of a legitimate law enforcement action?

Nice try, but I can't respond because I am certain Bumper doesn't want that stuff discussed here, and the thread would not only get closed but we'd get a few points.

Like it or not...Hopyard is spot on with this analysis of the 14th Amendment...

Too many of you are doing just what we pro-2A supports hate...you are "interpreting" the 14th Amendment....

The Constitution is clear and concise...and has a method of changing it...if you don't like what is in the Constitution, use the method the Framers gave us...stop trying to get some lawmaker to pass a law...that's how we have the many and varied gun laws...

"Texas Republicans also want to limit citizenship by birth to those born to a U.S. citizen “with no exceptions.”

Which proves that they have no understanding of our Constitution or no regard for it whatsoever.

U.S. Constitution:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

.

Except for this wording I would agree with Hopyard (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) Because their parents are not here legally they can not be subject to our rights and privileges. If the parents are here legally then the child would be covered.

Unless I am wrong on the meaning of that wording that part is being ignored just like the words (Right to Keep and Bear) of the 2nd

Except for this wording I would agree with Hopyard (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) Because their parents are not here legally they can not be subject to our rights and privileges. If the parents are here legally then the child would be covered.

Unless I am wrong on the meaning of that wording that part is being ignored just like the words (Right to Keep and Bear) of the 2nd

Can we arrest someone here Illegally? The answer is yes...

They are under the jurisdiction of this country...

Those words do not have anything to do with "rights and privileges"...

Like it or not...Hopyard is spot on with this analysis of the 14th Amendment...

Too many of you are doing just what we pro-2A supports hate...you are "interpreting" the 14th Amendment....

The Constitution is clear and concise...and has a method of changing it...if you don't like what is in the Constitution, use the method the Framers gave us...stop trying to get some lawmaker to pass a law...that's how we have the many and varied gun laws...

What DaveJay and Hopyard said. As soon as i looked at the proposed TX law that one thing jumped out at me. In order to change the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution two things must happen.

•Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose a change to the 14th amendment.

•Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it. Or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.

DALLAS — Texas Republicans adopted another get-tough policy on immigration and bilingual education Saturday that some say will make it hard for the party to attract Hispanic voters at a time when the Texas population is turning increasingly Latino.

Attract Hispanic voters?
!. Hispanics will vote about 27% republican. That's not going to change if you promise to release every Hispanic from prison, or nominate only Hispanic judges. (If only you could find a lesbian woman Hispanic in a wheelchair, now there's a nomination that couldn't be voted down. "Qualifications? We don't need no stinking qualifications".)
2. Where is it written that all Hispanics are for illegal immigration? It must be true because I hear it all the time. Kinda like hearing Hispanics can't learn English because only Spanish is on "Press #2", not French or German.
3. When will a politician who wants MY vote stand for the rule of law?

I hate to tell you ,but almost all American latinos,and Legal residents or naturalised citisens feel the same way about Illegal aliens as we do,they had to go thru Legal means to become citisens,they pay the same taxes as everyone else and apply for the same jobs,so they look at how they affect their lives.I'm all for it,there are thousands of Illegals popping out anchor babys in South Texas Hospitals every year,as soon as the kid is born they start applying for medicaid food stamps welfare and everything else they can get free

Especially here in Texas; almost every hispanic I know tells me they can't build that wall fast enough.....And many of them have relatives down in Mexico. Their opinion is the same as mine - Obey our laws as we would obey and respect yours when we are in your country, nothing more nothing less.....

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry